The stunning loss of Arctic sea ice extent in recent years is undeniable--satellite measurements have conclusively shown that half of the Arctic sea ice went missing in September 2012, compared to the average September during 1979 - 2000. But the extent of ice cover is not the best measure of how the fire raging in Earth's attic is affecting sea ice--the total volume of the ice is more important. But up until 2010, we didn't have the measurements needed to say how the total volume of ice in the Arctic might be changing. Scientists relied on the University of Washington PIOMAS model, which suggested that the loss of Arctic sea ice volume during September might be approaching 75% - 80%. The model results were widely criticized by climate change skeptics as being unrealistic. However, in April 2010, a new satellite called Cryostat-2 was launched, which can measure ice volume by beaming pulses of microwave energy off of the ice. With two years of data to Cryosat-2 data to analyze, the results of the PIOMAS model have now been confirmed by a study published on-line in February 2013 in Geophysical Research Letters. In a University of Washington news release, co-author Axel Schweiger said, "people had argued that 75 to 80 percent ice volume loss was too aggressive. What this new paper shows is that our ice loss estimates may have been too conservative, and that the recent decline is possibly more rapid." The U.K.'s Natural Environmental Research Council reported that the team of scientists found that from 2003 to 2012, the volume of Arctic sea ice declined 36% in the autumn and 9% in the winter. The measure of sea ice volume is a good indicator of how the Arctic's most stable, "multi-year" ice is fairing. As the multi-year ice declines, sea ice extent, the total area covered by sea ice, in an "Arctic death spiral". The new study shows that thick, multi-year ice has disappeared in areas north of Greenland, around the Canadian Archipelago, and to the northeast of Svalbard, Norway.

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice volume in thousands of cubic kilometers during the September minimum in 1979 compared to 2012, as estimated by the University of Washington PIOMAS model. Arctic seas ice volume has declined by more than a factor of five. Image credit; Andy Lee Robinson.

Why care about Arctic sea ice loss?If you remove an area of sea ice 43% the size of the contiguous U.S. from the ocean, like occurred in September 2012, it is guaranteed to have a significant impact on weather and climate. The extra heat and moisture added to the atmosphere as a result of all that open water over the pole may already be altering jet stream patterns in fall and winter, bringing an increase in extreme weather events. The record sea ice loss in 2012 also contributed to an unprecedented melting event in Greenland. Continued sea ice loss will further increase melting from Greenland, contributing to sea level rise and storm surge damages. Sea ice loss will also continue to crank up the thermostat over Arctic permafrost regions. This will potentially release a significant fraction of the vast amounts of carbon currently locked in the permafrost, further accelerating global warming.

Related PostsEarth's attic is on fire: Arctic sea ice bottoms out at a new record low (September 2012)Half of the polar ice cap is missing: Arctic sea ice hits a new record low. September 6, 2012 blog postWunderground's Sea Ice pageArctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed by Joe Romm at climateprogress.org.

The whole 'global warming' thing is about power and control period.The powers (international banks, specifically the bank for international settlements) love the distraction this causes while they continue to pillage and rape the world.

You people fall for it every time.

We don't have anywhere near the data needed to make any sort of long term prediction about, just about everything.

The whole 'global warming' thing is about power and control period.The powers (international banks, specifically the bank for international settlements) love the distraction this causes while they continue to pillage and rape the world.

You people fall for it every time.

We don't have anywhere near the data needed to make any sort of long term prediction about, just about everything.

Quoting: Anonymous Coward 33661162

Well, you do not like the word "global warming" (though it is nothing more than a term for the preliminary, current results of current researches, and scientists are not to blame if it is often used to justify the inflated sensations).But the fact that something in our eyes change globally - with this you at least agree? OP is just trying to objectively consider what is and in what direction change (although it is clear that the point in this matter will not set soon, if we do have time at all to see it)

*snipThe current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 69 in the Fall of 2013. The smoothed sunspot number has already reached 67 (in February 2012)due to the strong peak in late 2011 so the official maximum will be at least this high and this late. We are currently over four years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.***************I would copy the image but doesn't seem to be working for me (computer is acting funky right now) but scroll down and take a look at image SC24 compared to SC5 in 2011 is shown below:

*snipThe current prediction for Sunspot Cycle 24 gives a smoothed sunspot number maximum of about 69 in the Fall of 2013. The smoothed sunspot number has already reached 67 (in February 2012)due to the strong peak in late 2011 so the official maximum will be at least this high and this late. We are currently over four years into Cycle 24. The current predicted and observed size makes this the smallest sunspot cycle since Cycle 14 which had a maximum of 64.2 in February of 1906.***************I would copy the image but doesn't seem to be working for me (computer is acting funky right now) but scroll down and take a look at image SC24 compared to SC5 in 2011 is shown below:

What I know about global warming vs ice age is that global warming can CAUSE an ice age, by increasing the air born humidity from evaporated water, causing more snow to fall everywhere, causing more sunlight to be reflected back to space instead of absorbed by the ground, causing winter not to go away. Plus the usual stuff about the great ocean currents breaking down and so on.

There's no denying that everywhere has been hotter in the summer, not just north america, and winters are getting drastic again.

I do not believe in "Man Made Climate Change" but I do believe in "Climate Change"

I think a lot of people have a lot to gain by blaming humans and CO2.

I do however think there are cycles, we did start warming. I think we did have a period of "Global Warming" the stats show this to be true. Then as the atmosphere warmed, ice melted, the ice that melted ran into the oceans. The oceans have a huge impact on our climate, so with all this added frigid water from the ice melting, it is now causing a cooling effect.

Quoting: *Evan*

Hmmm....who do I believe, the National Academy of Science, the IPCC, every meteorological and climatological institution in the world, or THIS moron's opinion on melting ice?

Oh... You know what? You have your agenda to misinform. I just hope that you guys are getting paid for this pretty well. For everyone else, read the actual science for yourselves and stop listening to these people telling you the Earth is flat and that they'll pull out in time. Honest!

Understanding extreme weather in an era of climate changeScientists try to ID climate signals in weather as public draws conclusions.

The US has clearly seen some pretty extreme weather events over the last year. These events have caused both billions of dollars in property damage and endless arguments over how much can be attributed to climate change. Even as scientists work on the problem of attribution, the public has often made up its mind on what's to blame.

To try to bring some sanity to the discussion, the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science hosted a session on US weather extremes. Although there were a variety of talks, three presentations nicely captured the challenges: one on the state of the US climate, another on a recent climate event, and a third on trying to convey all of this to the public.

Turning up the heatThe first speaker was Donald Wuebbles of the University of Illinois. He started out by saying that you can view the climate as a bell curve, with extreme heat and cold events occurring where it starts to flatten out to the left and right. In that view, changing the climate could do any of three things. The curve itself could shift, with hot events becoming more common and cold events becoming less frequent. You could also potentially flatten the curve, with the typical climate remaining roughly the same but the instances of extreme events increased. Or, he said, you could do both.Depending on which aspect of the climate system you're looking at, you may get any one of these options....

Heubbles also mentioned a variety of events that have been specifically attributed to climate change, including the recent drought in Texas, which analysts have suggested was made anywhere between two and twenty times more likely by climate change. This fact served as a great bridge to the next speaker, John Nielsen-Gammon, a Texas state climatologist.

Running hotRecord high temperatures are becoming much more common, even as record lows are decreasing in frequency. [link to www.c2es.org] ..."Saying the drought was due to climate change is like saying the airplane crashed due to gravity," Nielsen-Gammon said.

<i would like add : same for cold:tounge:>

It's true, but it doesn't tell you much. So, his team used climate models to try to understand the causes of the drought...

Managing complexityIf Nielsen-Gammon's job was complicated by the mix of natural variation and climate-driven events, then Andrew Freedman has an even greater challenge: accurately conveying it to the public...

To try to get accurate information to the public, Climate Central is working with TV meteorologists, who already reach the public but don't always have the tools to handle the complexities well. And the emphasis is on getting them to ask better questions—instead of "did global warming cause this?", they should focus on questions that are more relevant and can be answered, like "how did it [climate change] influence the odds for or severity of this event?"...

<seems like Joe Bastardi too stubborn to understand such things>

...This certainly won't guarantee that we'll end up with a public that can easily grasp the complexities of climate. But it could help them to start recognizing that the complexities exist.